The controversy over Form 6 is not about its basic purpose as an application form for voter registration. It concerns an additional declaration being sought alongside Form 6 during the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
The issue came into focus following reports that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had raised objections to incorporating the SIR declaration into the Form 6 process. Their reported concern was that Form 6 is a statutory form prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, and that any change to the statutory form would require an amendment to the Rules.
The ECI, however, has maintained that Form 6 itself has not been changed. According to the Commission, the declaration is an additional requirement specifically linked to the SIR exercise and does not alter the statutory Form 6.
On September 26, the ECI said the Supreme Court had already upheld the declaration attached to Form 6 in its judgment on petitions challenging the Bihar SIR.
This has raised a narrower legal and procedural question: Did the Supreme Court, while upholding the ECI’s power to prescribe additional documentation for an SIR, also approve the specific declaration now being used with Form 6?
That distinction is at the heart of the dispute. Here is an explainer that delves into the real issue surrounding this additional documentation.
What is Form 6?
Form 6 is the application form used by eligible Indian citizens to seek inclusion of their names in the electoral roll as new voters.
According to the Election Commission, a citizen can apply if they are 18 years old, or will attain 18 on any of the four qualifying dates — January 1, April 1, July 1 or October 1.
The applicant must ordinarily reside in the constituency concerned and must not be legally disqualified from registration as a voter.
Form 6 collects the information required to process the application, including the applicant’s name, date of birth, residential address and other prescribed particulars.
It is a statutory form under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, which govern the preparation and revision of electoral rolls.
Who can change Form 6?
The Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, were framed under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and constitute subordinate legislation.
Rule 13 provides for claims for inclusion in the electoral roll to be made through Form 6.
Therefore, a substantive change to the statutory form prescribed under the Rules would ordinarily require an amendment to the relevant Rules by the competent authority.
The ECI administers the electoral-roll process and can prescribe procedures within the authority granted to it by law. The dispute, however, is whether the additional SIR declaration amounts merely to an SIR-specific procedural requirement or effectively changes the statutory Form 6 and imposes an additional condition for enrolment.
Why has Form 6 become controversial?
Under the ordinary voter-registration process, Form 6 is used by an eligible citizen to seek inclusion in the electoral roll.
The controversy arises from an additional declaration being sought during the SIR exercise.
Under the SIR requirement, an applicant may have to establish a link with the electoral roll prepared during the previous intensive revision. This can involve furnishing details relating to the applicant or a parent or grandparent, including the name, relationship, EPIC number, constituency, part number and serial number in the earlier roll.
The ECI’s online system presently lists the SIR declaration separately from Form 6.
This has led to the central legal question: Can the ECI impose such an additional requirement as part of an SIR without amending the Rules that prescribe Form 6, or would such a requirement require a formal amendment to the statutory framework?
The issue gained prominence after reports that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had objected to incorporating the SIR requirement into the Form 6 process.
The ECI’s position is that there has been no alteration to Form 6 and that the declaration is an additional requirement applicable specifically to the SIR.
What did the Supreme Court decide in the Bihar SIR case?
In its May 27, 2026 judgment on the Bihar SIR, the Supreme Court upheld the ECI’s authority to conduct the intensive revision and examined the documentation framework adopted for the exercise.
The Court recognised that Form 6 is designed for the ordinary process of electoral-roll revision, while an intensive revision may require a different documentation framework.
The Court therefore recognised that the ECI has residual authority to devise an appropriate framework for an SIR.
But that authority is not unlimited.
The Court held, in substance, that where the ECI departs from the ordinary statutory framework, the additional requirements must have a rational connection with the purpose of the SIR.
The Court also took note of safeguards available to persons whose eligibility is questioned, including notice, an opportunity to respond and avenues of appeal.
Thus, the judgment is significant because it recognises that the ECI can prescribe additional documentation for an intensive revision. At the same time, such requirements remain subject to legal limits and judicial scrutiny.
Did the Supreme Court approve the declaration now attached to Form 6?
This is the central issue in the present dispute.
On September 26, 2026, the ECI said the Supreme Court had already upheld the declaration attached to Form 6. The Commission also said that the ordinary statutory forms would continue to apply outside the SIR process.
However, the Supreme Court’s Bihar judgment examined Annexure D, issued as part of the ECI’s June 2025 SIR order.
The declaration now being questioned is a later version. It seeks information linking the applicant, or the applicant’s parent or grandparent, to the electoral roll prepared during the previous SIR. It also contains a declaration regarding the consequences of furnishing false information.
The distinction is important because the Supreme Court’s judgment did not merely concern whether the ECI could ever prescribe additional documentation. It examined the particular framework challenged before it.
The present question is therefore whether the Court’s recognition of the ECI’s power to prescribe additional documentation for an SIR can automatically be treated as judicial approval of this later declaration.
There are, in effect, two separate propositions:
First: Does the ECI have the authority to prescribe additional documentation for an SIR? The Supreme Court has recognised such authority, subject to legal limits.
Second: Did the Supreme Court specifically approve the particular declaration now being attached to Form 6? That is the narrower question at the centre of the present dispute.
The controversy, therefore, is not over whether Form 6 continues to exist or whether the ECI can conduct an SIR. It is over the legal status of the additional declaration and whether the Supreme Court’s Bihar judgment can be relied upon as approval of this particular version of it.